Aircraft selection for an additional commitment

[alwyn2d]

The Army had a policy for an additional 3 years, you could select your branch. In this case, aviation in attending flight school as a Commission Officer. 

While in AF SUPT in being so YOUNG to the AF, would YOU volunteer an additional 3 years for a certain aircraft selection?

The AF would get an additional 3 years out of you without spending one thin dime in bonus money.

Remember, you're young and your dreams await you.

 

[Guest PeggyDriver46]

2LT LoveDumpster would be all about that. However, not everyone can be a special operations fighter pilot. We need dudes in unsexy airplanes to do extremely important missions. Those steely eye’d fighter pilots aren’t doing shit without tanker support.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[alwyn2d]

If wanting fighters, they must qualify. Perhaps establish an order of merit list. Based on your class ranking, you select your aircraft. If willing to do an additional 3 years, you have priority.

Edited December 16, 2020 by alwyn2d

[HuggyU2]

12 minutes ago, alwyn2d said:

If wanting fighters, they must qualify. Perhaps establish an order of merit list. Based on your class ranking, you select your aircraft. 

I have no idea what is done today, but years ago that is how it was done... minus the additional 3 year thing. 

[Guest PeggyDriver46]

17 minutes ago, alwyn2d said:

If wanting fighters, they must qualify. Perhaps establish an order of merit list. Based on your class ranking, you select your aircraft. If willing to do and additional 3 years, you have priority.

That sounds literally like what's happening now, minus the 3 years. All based on the rack and stack and whatever the AFPC gods have available. 

[alwyn2d]

Asking you. Would you do the additional 3 years in getting your aircraft of choice if someone else took your selection without the additional 3 years. You would have priority.

[jazzdude]

If the UPT commitment wasn't 10 years already, then it might make sense.

A good UPT IP would point out to the studs that those extra 3 years would likely puts you in a non flying assignment at the end of your commitment, and that they shouldn't expect to fly for all 13 years of their ADSC.

A cynical person would point out that drops you off at the 14.5-15 years of service, and would probably cause those that take the +3 years ADSC up front for assignment choice probably won't be offered a retention bonus. Even though an experienced gray beard IP brings value to line squadrons, line fly billets can be filled with young guys (produce your way out of the shortage), and the longer ADSC already allows the AF to fill it's needs for experienced pilots in non flying jobs, driving down or eliminating the need to offer an aviation bonus. So the AF gets the retention it needs to fill it's requirements for much less cost (increased ADSC is basically free), while studs that take the deal may not really know what they are committing to.

ETA: 5 year promotion opportunity, and eliminating the 2x passed over exit option means someone could serve that entire commitment as a captain, and can't get out earlier due to being passed over for major.

[alwyn2d]

That's the point, the student will not know the real deal but he/she got the F-22A or KC-135 they always wanted as a kid.

The AF gets 3 more years at no cost and possibly saving bonus money as well.

I bet more than a few students would bite in being so young.

Remember, the AF has increased UPT from 3yrs to 10yrs over the years and people are still standing in line for that pilot seat. 

Edited December 16, 2020 by alwyn2d

[jazzdude]

The AF gets 3 more years at no cost and possibly saving bonus money as well.
I bet more than a few students would bite in being so young.

Absolutely. And that extra 3 years fixes the staff/non-fly/mid-career manning problem, and enables the AF to produce it's way out of the pilot shortage.

I'm guessing this idea is coming from the 15 year UPT commitment (with mixed AD/ARC service potential) idea that was floating around a few years ago panning out as not feasible.

[FLEA]

I don't think any discussion of increasing the initial ADSC is worth merit. At some point its becoming predatory. Do you really want a dude at the 11-13 year point flying planes who is only showing up to work each day because he feels like he is under obligation of the law to not go to jail. At least at 10 years you still feel like you have a few exit options. 

Honestly, I think the AF needs to rethink pilot ADSC's all together. I bet you raise retention by shortening the ADSC. Shorten it to 6 years, pay the bonus out in 3 year increments based on accepting another PCS and reduce the amount of the bonus so over a full career it pays the same but each year individually pays less. You need to string people a long. Once you lock them in for 10-13 years, if they become jaded and feel like they can't escape, even once, they wont risk being put in that situation again. My career is awesome right now. Having the time of my life. (except for COVID) But I was burned ONE time 5 years ago, and stuck with shitty circumstances. Nothing in the world is going to convince me to risk that happening again. 

[jazzdude]

I don't think any discussion of increasing the initial ADSC is worth merit. At some point its becoming predatory. Do you really want a dude at the 11-13 year point flying planes who is only showing up to work each day because he feels like he is under obligation of the law to not go to jail. At least at 10 years you still feel like you have a few exit options.

Bold of you to assume that:

a ) the AF cares if it's predatory or not (how many of our enlisted have good things to say about their recruiter...)

And

b ) that someone on this deal would be flying a plane from 11-13 years of aviation service

I'm guessing that increased bonuses are a non starter on the air staff now.

[FLEA]

39 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

Bold of you to assume that:

a ) the AF cares if it's predatory or not (how many of our enlisted have good things to say about their recruiter...)

And

b ) that someone on this deal would be flying a plane from 11-13 years of aviation service

I'm guessing that increased bonuses are a non starter on the air staff now.

 

They're non starters in so much as the AF doesn't have the authority to increase bonuses, congress has to do that.

Also, reading your post above, the AF cannot remove the two passed over exit option. That is also congress. Up or out is written into law via the DOPMA. 

Regarding B.), A burnt out dude isn't going to staff. He will stay a line IP until his term ends. All this does is make it so more shiny pennies can go to staff. Either way, it doesn't really matter. Even if you did get that person to staff he isn't going to do crap and unlike a line squadron on staff, no one is actually tracking your accountability. You're just rated on your accomplishments. 

Staff is a really important position. You have strategic level impacts there. Putting talent there that is just trapped into it until they can fill out a term is just going to brain rot the force. 

I mean, you can go this route.... but you're just building a talent pool that's going to lose wars due to incompetence. I could totally see the AF not thinking about that though, so whatever I guess. 

[SurelySerious]

57 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

Bold of you to assume that:

a ) the AF cares if it's predatory or not (how many of our enlisted have good things to say about their recruiter...)

And

b ) that someone on this deal would be flying a plane from 11-13 years of aviation service

I'm guessing that increased bonuses are a non starter on the air staff now.

 

 

6 minutes ago, FLEA said:

They're non starters in so much as the AF doesn't have the authority to increase bonuses, congress has to do that.

Also, reading your post above, the AF cannot remove the two passed over exit option. That is also congress. Up or out is written into law via the DOPMA. 

Regarding B.), A burnt out dude isn't going to staff. He will stay a line IP until his term ends. All this does is make it so more shiny pennies can go to staff. Either way, it doesn't really matter. Even if you did get that person to staff he isn't going to do crap and unlike a line squadron on staff, no one is actually tracking your accountability. You're just rated on your accomplishments. 

Staff is a really important position. You have strategic level impacts there. Putting talent there that is just trapped into it until they can fill out a term is just going to brain rot the force. 

I mean, you can go this route.... but you're just building a talent pool that's going to lose wars due to incompetence. I could totally see the AF not thinking about that though, so whatever I guess. 

The real reason the increased bonus or flight pay more in line with how we keep doctors is that the AF would have to admit having a problem to Congress and then advocating for it in front of them. 
 

And FLEA I 100% suspect that HAF/AFPC only care that numbers have been made with respect to staff billets instead of mindfully manning them with the right people. 
 

Edit: I’ll tell you what I might have accepted a 3 year ADSC for at the end of my UPT commitment: a 15 year reduced retirement, but that’s also not a tool available to AFPC because the Air Force “doesn’t have a problem” any time they talk to Congress

Edited December 16, 2020 by SurelySerious

[alwyn2d]

Some seem to forget. The 3 additional years is for the PLANE of your DREAMS. Will you bite as a YOUNG flight student?

[BeefBears]

51 minutes ago, alwyn2d said:

Some seem to forget. The 3 additional years is for the PLANE of your DREAMS. Will you bite as a YOUNG flight student?

Yeah, yeah. I get it. We can capitalize on the hopes and dreams of young guys before they know better. If that's the case, I say we just make it a 20 year commitment off the bat. I am sure there are still plenty of naive fighter pilot hopefuls that will sign up for that. Once they are in, we send them to be a MX officer that flies only for currency or something equally hilarious. 

[jazzdude]

The real reason the increased bonus or flight pay more in line with how we keep doctors is that the AF would have to admit having a problem to Congress and then advocating for it in front of them. 

Congress already knows we have a problem, and DoD had to report on it last summer. But it's unlikely Congress will give the DoD or AF more money period. So it becomes a zero sum game for the AF: to increase the pilot bonus, money gets cut from elsewhere.

Here's some napkin math:
1200 pilots per year produced
65% take rate (target) yields 780 pilots on bonus
Assume 5 year bonus, $35k/year
Each year group would cost $27.3M per year
Stack the 5 years drawing bonus gives you a cost of $136.5M per year.

Assuming a 40% take rate/35k/5 year bonus, it's still $84M per year. Let's say we up the bonus to the $60K/yr RAND recommended, then the cost for 40% take/60k/5 year bonus yields $144M.

So what gets cut in order to fund an increase?

[jazzdude]

Regarding B.), A burnt out dude isn't going to staff. He will stay a line IP until his term ends. All this does is make it so more shiny pennies can go to staff. Either way, it doesn't really matter. Even if you did get that person to staff he isn't going to do crap and unlike a line squadron on staff, no one is actually tracking your accountability. You're just rated on your accomplishments. 

A poor performer probably still won't go to staff. But there's always Maxwell for SOS/ACSC instructor. Or out to an AOC/TACC. Or to any other must fills a squadron gets tagged with.

It would free up the opportunity for average guys to go to staff, since retention of people with the timing to go to staff would've increased with an extra 3 years of ADSC. Then the AF has a carrot to get them to stay in after the ADSC-requalification in an aircraft, which buys one more assignment and puts the pilot one assignment away from retirement.

The other option is to try and jump ship to the airlines non-current, and that'd be dependent on how the airline industry is doing at that time.

Don't agree that this approach is "right" for fixing pilot retention, but I do see why big AF is considering it.

[jazzdude]

Some seem to forget. The 3 additional years is for the PLANE of your DREAMS. Will you bite as a YOUNG flight student?

I would've considered it. The challenge is that same offer would've gone to my classmates, who may be thinking about buying off the available assignment I want, even though my class ranking may be higher. If no one in my class wants what I want, there's no pressure to take it. But if several people want what I want, then the option becomes more appealing.

Then again, my class got a few RPAs, so there'd be more incentive to take the extra ADSC to get something that at least gets my butt in the air.

[SurelySerious]

42 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

Congress already knows we have a problem, and DoD had to report on it last summer. But it's unlikely Congress will give the DoD or AF more money period. So it becomes a zero sum game for the AF: to increase the pilot bonus, money gets cut from elsewhere...
So what gets cut in order to fund an increase?

 

Afghanistan 

Edited December 16, 2020 by SurelySerious
newfangled quoting

[jazzdude]

Afghanistan 

If we get out of Afghanistan/Iraq, it frees up money, but also reduces ops tempo, and eliminates many "bad deal" deployments and 365s. Would that alone be enough to increase retention without increasing the bonus, as those have been significant drivers for pilots separating? Though airline hiring plays a role in retention as well.

I'm sure that money would quickly be spent on modernization efforts to pivot to prepare for a high end fight with China or Russia.

[SurelySerious]

57 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

If we get out of Afghanistan/Iraq, it frees up money, but also reduces ops tempo, and eliminates many "bad deal" deployments and 365s. Would that alone be enough to increase retention without increasing the bonus, as those have been significant drivers for pilots separating? Though airline hiring plays a role in retention as well.

I'm sure that money would quickly be spent on modernization efforts to pivot to prepare for a high end fight with China or Russia.

I don’t think it would directly increase retention, but willing to risk that and the potential that OCO money would be steered towards capital reinvestment of equipment...because we need that, too. 
 

Edit: I largely suspect that the AFG status quo will stay just that so it won’t matter...but if we were to end that quagmire, unlikely the decrease in OCO budget stays with the DOD in the near future anyway, so just wishful thinking all around. 

Edited December 16, 2020 by SurelySerious

[pawnman]

2 hours ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

Congress already knows we have a problem, and DoD had to report on it last summer. But it's unlikely Congress will give the DoD or AF more money period. So it becomes a zero sum game for the AF: to increase the pilot bonus, money gets cut from elsewhere.

Here's some napkin math:
1200 pilots per year produced
65% take rate (target) yields 780 pilots on bonus
Assume 5 year bonus, $35k/year
Each year group would cost $27.3M per year
Stack the 5 years drawing bonus gives you a cost of $136.5M per year.

Assuming a 40% take rate/35k/5 year bonus, it's still $84M per year. Let's say we up the bonus to the $60K/yr RAND recommended, then the cost for 40% take/60k/5 year bonus yields $144M.

So what gets cut in order to fund an increase?

 

How much do you suppose the Air Force spends on office furniture and new TVs every year?

 

[jazzdude]

How much do you suppose the Air Force spends on office furniture and new TVs every year?
 

Probably too much, and would be a good place to start scrounging money from (extend the time between office furniture refreshes to achieve cost savings). Though I feel the TV phenomena was units just trying to spend money to spend money at the end of the year vs letting it get pooled at the group/wing (or finding more useful things to buy)

[Stitch]

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

How much do you suppose the Air Force spends on office furniture and new TVs every year?
 

words, words, words... (or finding more useful things to buy)

You mean like quality cold weather gear for maintainers....  

[Prozac]

Ten years is already too long and the needs of the AF will always take precedence. Just ask a bunch of the dudes in my year group who got the fighter of their dreams after UPT, only to find themselves “flying” Preds three years later. If you want to guarantee your airframe, go Guard and be prepared to work your ass off.